Why is "thinking of the children" even a thing?

[Woodsey]

A lot of the time, children have very little to do with it - the bigger problem is the person's prejudices, they just use "think of the children!" as an excuse.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

What get's me is how parents seem to think it's everyone else's job to raise their kids for them. Um... feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here, but don't you (and by "you" I mean parents) have full control over what entertainment media your kids are allowed to experience, i.e. movies they see, games they play etc. etc.?

 

[Shoggoth2588]

During arguments regarding media and violence/sex therein, a popular argument from those in favour of censorship is that children will watch it and be somehow traumatized. The most popular counterargumenet to that point seems to be "Don't let your kids read/watch/play it then", but I have another; In what way does violent or pornographic media traumatize them in the first place?

Apparently the creator of Mother/Earthbound based portions of the setting, tone etc after an experience he had as a child. Apparently he mistakenly walked into a theater showing a pornographic film and watched enough to get a little disturbed at a young age (disturbed as in scared not mutilate-small-animals disturbed).

My point being; traumatize more children so we can have more games like Earthbound.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Because lots of parents are crap. Hell, lots of adults learn science from Star Trek, they learn about the police from US cop shows (which is particularly annoying if they don't live in the US), forensics from CSI, the military from Call of Duty and sex from porn.

There comes a time when you throw up your hands and say "Fuck this, you lot are all too stupid to watch TV" and try to madly censor everything the stupid fuckers will believe.

Now, there are massive problems with that sort of thing, obviously, but I sometimes sympathise with people holding that mindset.

 

[Kekkonen1]

Because its a great way for politicians, lobbyist, corporations and other groups with specific interests to get their real agendas through, such as censoring the internet under the guise of battle against child pornography (which as any rational thinker would realise doesn't magically dissapear when we shut down the sites, we just cant see it anymore). Any counter-argument to these peoples agendas can be met by claiming that those against censoring internet is pro-child pornography and you automatically get everyone emotionally invested without actually thinking through other implications of the law. A great dirty tool.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

Because they're not mature enough to deal with it, monkey see monkey do and all that. And yes kids are likely to act out what they see on TV. There's age ratings on the box's for a reason

I for one say that you should not shelter a child. For me, one of the hallmarks of good parenting is letting a child explore and discover the world through media. However, there needs to be an adult to put things in the right context for children.

Letting them watch or read stuff by themselves gives me a feeling that children might end up growing retarded and thinking every single thing they see on TV is normal behavior. I feel this way because I used to be this way when I was a kid.

Basically, yes, there's a shittonne of evidence. That all said, I did some research into the effect of video games on children (I'm a psychology student) and there are too many studies going both ways, and none seem to have a handle on all of the variables yet.

I'm a psychology grad. so far the only thing my professor has ever mentioned is that there is a noticeable correlation between violent people and violent video games, but that's all there is to it, a correlation.

 

[Olas]

Using children as tools for argumentation and political gain is a time honored tradition. You wouldn't want to destroy a tradition, would you?

But ya, children are like sponges and are still in mental development, what they experience before the age of 6 will almost certainly shape their personality for the rest of their life. That's why I'd avoid letting little kids play manhunt.

 

[Cheesus Crust]

I'm a psychology grad. so far the only thing my professor has ever mentioned is that there is a noticeable correlation between violent people and violent video games, but that's all there is to it, a correlation.

The studies conducted have all hit different results with different variables. We're yet to see a "universal" or complete study. There are differences in long-term and short-term aggression, gender differences, etc. I don't think a proper professor would use the term "all there is to it", frankly. But if you're at uni, you'll have access to SAGE and PsycINFO and the rest; have a look yourself.

I'm not a university student anymore, though I never had access to the resources you cited. However, there was a time when I used to have access to sites like Jstor and psycnet was it? Sorry but I forget this was a long time ago and I haven't written a proper academic anything for a long time as I've just been working and waiting for the results on my law school admission tests.

About the "all there is to it", that was my thing and what I meant to say was that's all I understand about the issue, sorry if I didn't phrase it right.

I asked him the question if violent video games are responsible for violent behavior like how some people claim. What he said was something along the lines of there's no conclusive evidence as far as he knows that would show violent video games as a definitive cause, there is however at present, literature that shows a correlation between violent games and people with violent tendencies playing them.

Also, I would just like to mention that I asked this question back in 2008 so me being outdated on the studies on this topic is very likely.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Screw the children, I personally don't want to see your shitty violent or dirty media!

Just because its not going to permanently scare them doesn't necessarily mean parents are going to be cool with them watching it. Parents don't want there kids watching scary movies. It's not just because of sociological scarring. Also, somehow I doubt exposing a young kid, even one that can differentiate between fantasy and realty, to something like hardcore pornography is a good idea.

I think this argument depends heavily on intellectualize the world and ignoring anything that can't be proved with formal logic. Most people have some sense of the answer to this question already and I think you know the answer to this question already.

 

[Heronblade]

Generally speaking, people tend to exaggerate how much, if any, of a negative impact mature theme X has on age group Y. However, those restrictions tend to be there for a reason. The members of age group Y may or may not be adversely affected, but we know that at least some members of the age group below Y are, and we cannot tell with any degree of certainty where the line is.

I asked him the question if violent video games are responsible for violent behavior like how some people claim. What he said was something along the lines of there's no conclusive evidence as far as he knows that would show violent video games as a definitive cause, there is however at present, literature that shows a correlation between violent games and people with violent tendencies playing them.

A big part of the problem there is that the studies are having a very difficult time coming up with consistent results.

There seems to be a correlation between violent individuals playing violent video games as mentioned, but no studies I am aware of manage to indicate that the latter behavior causes the former. The hypothesis that individuals that already have violent tendencies are simply more likely to be attracted to related media also seems to be quite plausible.

Similar issues pop up in other categories as well. Several studies I know of suggest that a gamer is more capable of dealing with stress and negative emotions than their counterparts. Others suggest the exact opposite. Frankly, I do not know enough to tell you which, if any, have their variables locked down.

 

[Saika Renegade]

It's easier for some people to demand everyone and everything else in the world change to suit their specific needs, than to take even token responsibility for an enormous responsibility that they have brought into the world.

It's not only parents, but many moral guardians on a white knight's crusade also happen to have children.

Alternately, plain old selfish political motivation dressed up in that tired old chestnut, the false dichotomy. If you're not for protecting children from this filth, you're obviously one of the ones who wants to corrupt them for your own agenda, etc. etc.

And as paleontologist Robert Bakker pointed out, any species to which 'think of the children' is the first response they come to is overdue for dying out.

 

[klown]

Well, just because they have the ability to rationalize that Freddy Kruger isn't real, and you don't have to be afraid of him at age 7, doesn't really mean you still won't be. I think the idea of censorship should come down to what the parents feel like their children should see, and that should be respected for them.

If I want my hypothetical child to watch Friday the 13th when they 10, afterwards play a healthy dose of Saints Row II, I will. It's my choice on how I raise my child. If you don't want that for your child, that's fine too, I won't make your kids watch it.

I think as long as you give your kids variety, they'll be okay. Show them nice things too.

 

[Filiecs]

Because apparently children are the epitome of innocence and all that is good in this world. Anything that has to do with sex or extremely extreme violence is a corruption that will turn them into Satan-worshiping hell-beasts.

Food for thought:
It is a generally accepted fact that children seeing sexually explicit material or being told about sex in any way will cause them damage and corrupt them.

However, in reality, there is almost no evidence supporting this. Researchers have been unable to test the effects of sexually explicit material on children because doing so would be "immoral". The entire idea is based off of a social standard.

 

[Strazdas]

Sheltering, ridiculous emotional attachment (what can be stronger than love for your own children?) and easy to use as a weapon when you got no real arguments is why "think of the children" always.
Problem is, most of those arguing with such statement dont actually think of the children, just use it as an excuse.

 

[ZekeTheHobo]

It's alright to let your kids watch TV. It's not alright to let your kids be taught by TV.

It's also not alright to pack a single cookie for your kid's school lunch, never bother to come pick them up, then get high and throw loud parties while they're trying to sleep. You can't tell that to some of the parents in my neighborhood.

... Wow, that got dark.

 

[Saladfork]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses, everyone.

I think this argument depends heavily on intellectualize the world and ignoring anything that can't be proved with formal logic. Most people have some sense of the answer to this question already and I think you know the answer to this question already.

If something can't be proven with formal logic, though, I see no reason to accept it as fact. There might be an answer we take as intuitive, but that doesn't necessarily make it correct.

Besides, there are at least a few things (the first one that comes to mind being 'pink is for women') many attribute to 'instinct' that are really just a result of societal imprint.

 

[Jordy Hartog]

Well, just because they have the ability to rationalize that Freddy Kruger isn't real, and you don't have to be afraid of him at age 7, doesn't really mean you still won't be. I think the idea of censorship should come down to what the parents feel like their children should see, and that should be respected for them.

If I want my hypothetical child to watch Friday the 13th when they 10, afterwards play a healthy dose of Saints Row II, I will. It's my choice on how I raise my child. If you don't want that for your child, that's fine too, I won't make your kids watch it.

I think as long as you give your kids variety, they'll be okay. Show them nice things too.

Heh, I would actually wish that on your hypothetical child. See, I was 9 when I first got to see a movie that ended up shaping my life. That movie was John Carpenter's the Thing, and I largely blame it for igniting my love of all things Horror.